Ah, that. Yeah, making aliens more unique is something that's kind of lacking. They'll probably add that after a while. After all, it took a while for raiding and other religions civs to get in CKII. However for me it's not really priority work - it's in the realm of "nice to have" features.

About war, not sure what you mean => in CKII, as soon as a war has started the best strategy also is to have the biggest army with the best commanders as well. You're limited by food though, but if you're playing in Western Europe chances are that territories can sustain larger armies than the one you can field for a while. I'm not sure about how EU works as I've not played that one. They're a bit easier to catch, but then again, it's not really difficult in Stellaris either. Thing is that war is boring in a 4X anyway. Either I'm superior to them or they are, no point in dragging it out. Again, I'd be playing starcraft if I'd wanted an even playing field. In a 4X, I'd want to win a losing fight because I purchased the help of a neighbouring merc empire or something - but that's not there. Rather... not there yet. Again, paradox game - that's how they work. Late Stellaris II in 2023 will have all that, until then it's really an open beta.

Ah, that. Yeah, making aliens more unique is something that's kind of lacking. They'll probably add that after a while. After all, it took a while for raiding and other religions civs to get in CKII. However for me it's not really priority work - it's in the realm of "nice to have" features.

About war, not sure what you mean => in CKII, as soon as a war has started the best strategy also is to have the biggest army with the best commanders as well. You're limited by food though, but if you're playing in Western Europe chances are that territories can sustain larger armies than the one you can field for a while. I'm not sure about how EU works as I've not played that one. They're a bit easier to catch, but then again, it's not really difficult in Stellaris either. Thing is that war is boring in a 4X anyway. Either I'm superior to them or they are, no point in dragging it out. Again, I'd be playing starcraft if I'd wanted an even playing field. In a 4X, I'd want to win a losing fight because I purchased the help of a neighbouring merc empire or something - but that's not there. Rather... not there yet. Again, paradox game - that's how they work. Late Stellaris II in 2023 will have all that, until then it's really an open beta.

The best strategy in CK2 isn't to have one giant doomstack, that works out terribly in the game. It is best to spread your forces and have as few troops as possible in order to siege a province, so that the rest can go take over other areas, often fights start and I send troops over as reinforcements. If you have one doomstack your siege will be incredibly slow and they can grow their army in every other province, which may be enough to kill your doomstack. If you spread your troops over all their provinces like butter except with a bit more put on some areas than others, they can't build an army easily and you can conquer everything, even if you don't get to keep it all.

Thing is, I don't think in the current combat system they could even fix doomstacks being the "top choice" because everything they did the past 5 major patches (and expansion) has pushed the game further into a combat focused direction. Take HIVE or SYNTH races in consideration, which get a MAJOR diplo penalty by default....

Imo it already begins with the FTL methods and how gravity wells work in the game, having your entire system to fly around in might look nice, but from a gameplay standpoint this creates huge annoyances (chasing enemies for example, especially over multiple systems, is a major issue) or the fact that you get drawn into battles that you don't want (res and mining stations.....) and lose the ability to give orders at that point.

I think the game should take a step back and have combat resolve outside of the system, like Moo 3 did it. And when fleets are destroyed there should be PER PLANET negotiations for surrender, since there is no logical reason why a planet gov would not surrender if the entire solar system is lost, aside maybe from the homeworld itself. This would also allow pacifist empires to conquer worlds.... you stare them into submission by a friendly blockade ;P

Ps.: For pacifists it should be possible to have robots and other species in their empire fight their wars.....

Damnit, all this talk made me want to replay Moo 3 with heavy mods.

« Last Edit: May 11, 2017, 09:36:30 AM by eRe4s3r »

Logged

Proud member of the Initiative for Bigger Weapons EV. - Bringer of Additive Blended Doom - Vote for Lore, get free cookie

No one said the combat in Stellaris is good. It's not. However, contrary to popular belief, doomstacks is not the problem. It's just a fact of force projection. In any proper grand strategy or 4X game, the battle should already be won before it happens. Anything you do inside the battle would affect very little. You would have planned ahead and had fleets to counter theirs, to counter their tactics etc. You would have your ships set up in wings and with specific orders to target specific types of ships and battle in a certain way.

So in that way, doomstacks aren't a problem. You have more ships than your opponent -> you try and force a fight you know you will win.

You have ships equipped to counter their fleet -> You try and force a fight you know you will win.

In any other case you will actively try to avoid a fight, because you know you will lose out. That's how grand strategy works. You want to have balanced fights with a lot of "in-battle" micro decisionmaking? Go play Starcraft.

Logged

Click here to get started with Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports.

In any other case you will actively try to avoid a fight, because you know you will lose out. That's how grand strategy works. You want to have balanced fights with a lot of "in-battle" micro decisionmaking? Go play Starcraft.

Which is ALL FINE as long as the game doesn't make me sit through an unskippable movie of the fight. If I can't do anything, let me go back to the part of the game where I CAN do something as quickly as possible. Aka: f-u Endless Space.

This is where I think After The Empire did it right. You don't have fleet stacks engaging fleet stacks. At all. You simply flag a system as "I want dis" and your (literal) millions of ships do the thing. All you can do is sit back and watch the result unfold (as an effective progress bar). Of course, there are other things you can do that effect the outcome (such as embargoing the enemy empire so he has less money with which to produce counter forces, or saying "I want dis" on fewer systems so your fleet bunches up more (it isn't a very big effect, mind), yadda yadda.

But I'm not drawn into a constant "look at me! We blew up 35 dudes!" The game doesn't have time for that nonsense. You have millions of units in dozens of fleets engaging in combat on EVERY planet. Yes, every planet. Even if you don't mark a planet as "I want dis" you still have pressure on that system. If you have more neighboring planets to that location than that empire has neighbors to it, its super vulnerable and might be conquered without any official interest in it. Of course....The same can happen to YOUR systems.

That's how grand strategy works. You want to have balanced fights with a lot of "in-battle" micro decisionmaking? Go play Starcraft.

Clearly what I said is that I want to remove the gameplay that encourages doomstacking as a viable day 1 strategy and I want additional elements that promote decision making with consequences at all times. Loyalty on admirals, strategies and battleplans that do not change (without huge admiral skill influence) mid-battle, fundamental battle doctrines etc.

And there are *many* ways to fix doomstacking in such a system, by making larger fleets have a big evasion penalty for example (since in a big fleet, you can't just "evade" however you want, you'd be crossing into pre-set fire lines of other ships) by giving admirals a fleet size they can manage but beyond that it gets muddy with sub-admirals who might not be all super skilled.

Basically, if Stellaris were really grand strategy, my decision who to appoint as admiral, my empire battle doctrines and training programs for admirals, my exchange with a warrior insect race that teaches my generals new tricks. That kind of thing should play into battles decisions just as much as what I sent into battle and how it was equipped. Obviously in such a system, a "mono-weapon" platform would be incredibly daft thing to sent into battle, as any missile barrage is gonna be countered by PD which, believe it or not, happen to be extremely effective in space. And unlike the PD system, your missile ammo is very limited. (That I don't want as micro management, but as a fleet management thing that plays into everything, supply lines specifically)

I am not convinced about abstraction to the level of After the Empire... at that point it really becomes less of what I envision, and more of a... weird kind of numbers balancing game.

I just wanna have some more systems in place that make smaller fleets (with great accuracy weapons, or great evasion abilities) not inherently flawed strategies.

Logged

Proud member of the Initiative for Bigger Weapons EV. - Bringer of Additive Blended Doom - Vote for Lore, get free cookie

The best strategy in CK2 isn't to have one giant doomstack, that works out terribly in the game. It is best to spread your forces and have as few troops as possible in order to siege a province, so that the rest can go take over other areas, often fights start and I send troops over as reinforcements. If you have one doomstack your siege will be incredibly slow and they can grow their army in every other province, which may be enough to kill your doomstack. If you spread your troops over all their provinces like butter except with a bit more put on some areas than others, they can't build an army easily and you can conquer everything, even if you don't get to keep it all.

Errr... wars do not start at "siege". You can only siege once you've beaten the enemy doomstack... which requires your doomstack to be there. While the sieging phase can be cut down somewhat... siege does go faster the higher number of units you have, and you have the option to assault buildings to reduce siege time (and take increased losses). As you want to lessen your vassal forces to attack your enemies anyway, with large empires it's often more worth to assault with a doomstack (taking rather "large" losses, which don't matter because it's your vassal's), because it reduces the war time significantly. As a result, it prevents you from getting counterattacked and / or just prevent them from getting allies. It's also possible to end wars before help arrives this way.

Quote

Which is ALL FINE as long as the game doesn't make me sit through an unskippable movie of the fight. If I can't do anything, let me go back to the part of the game where I CAN do something as quickly as possible. Aka: f-u Endless Space.

While I agree... minor point... battle animation been skippable since I started playing the game. I didn't buy it at launch though.

Quote

Basically, if Stellaris were really grand strategy, my decision who to appoint as admiral, my empire battle doctrines and training programs for admirals, my exchange with a warrior insect race that teaches my generals new tricks.

Stellaris is actually already moving toward this. Admiral's bonus may not yet be significant enough but do have a rather large impact on your forces. Events can give empire wide bonus - some of which happen to be in fights. Mostly related to neutral creep last time I played it though, but still. It's there and doable - possibly moddable.

Which is ALL FINE as long as the game doesn't make me sit through an unskippable movie of the fight. If I can't do anything, let me go back to the part of the game where I CAN do something as quickly as possible. Aka: f-u Endless Space.

While I agree... minor point... battle animation been skippable since I started playing the game. I didn't buy it at launch though.

The biggest problem with Endless Space's battle skip was that it DID NOT actually simulate the battle in the background. It just summed up each fleet's weapons, armor, and HP, and then assigned 'kills' randomly.This is exactly what made me stop playing. I'd discovered that most fleets could be destroyed by a suicidal mob a missile swarmers. Lots of PT boats, basically, to take out many times their cost in battleships. And it worked - if you personally fought the battle. If you let it resolve, the AI fleet would be unharmed.So if you wanted to use creative designs or tactics, you HAD to personally fight all your battles. And at launch, you could only fight 1 per turn...

That's what I like about 4x combat, especially with custom units. Creativity in design and tactics could get you much better results. I'd miss that part if Stellaris went full Grand Strategy. On the other hand, losing all the current frustrations from the combat system would be more than worth it...

Errr... wars do not start at "siege". You can only siege once you've beaten the enemy doomstack... which requires your doomstack to be there. While the sieging phase can be cut down somewhat... siege does go faster the higher number of units you have, and you have the option to assault buildings to reduce siege time (and take increased losses). As you want to lessen your vassal forces to attack your enemies anyway, with large empires it's often more worth to assault with a doomstack (taking rather "large" losses, which don't matter because it's your vassal's), because it reduces the war time significantly. As a result, it prevents you from getting counterattacked and / or just prevent them from getting allies. It's also possible to end wars before help arrives this way.

Fair point, though personally I don't often get into wars I need a doomstack to fight. Generally I expand other ways when possible, when I fight it is usually against weaker opponents who I can beat easily such as duchies in the same kingdom as me or small countries, since the game doesn't really reward you for huge battles against powerful enemies, as it is hard to get a claim allowing you to get much in that case. In cases that I do, I usually end up piling up soldiers on the border before starting the battle, and my armies (generally as a merchant republic, allowing ridiculously large retinues) are usually too big too keep in one place, I almost always have to divide them into at least 3 groups to avoid attrition, and generally I end up with smaller scale skirmishes all over the enemy country rather than one big battle, and if I try to bring a doomstack to fight theirs, theirs just runs away and attacks me every so often where I have few soldiers in a province due to trying to sort of carpet siege, then I just send tons of soldiers to join and beat the doomstack, which runs again, then rinse and repeat until either it dies, gets too small to risk attacking my soldiers, or I conquer everything and win.

Which is ALL FINE as long as the game doesn't make me sit through an unskippable movie of the fight. If I can't do anything, let me go back to the part of the game where I CAN do something as quickly as possible. Aka: f-u Endless Space.

While I agree... minor point... battle animation been skippable since I started playing the game. I didn't buy it at launch though.

The biggest problem with Endless Space's battle skip was that it DID NOT actually simulate the battle in the background. It just summed up each fleet's weapons, armor, and HP, and then assigned 'kills' randomly.This is exactly what made me stop playing.

Bingo. Skipping had a different outcome than not skipping. Making watching more beneficial. Making the game boring.

Which is ALL FINE as long as the game doesn't make me sit through an unskippable movie of the fight. If I can't do anything, let me go back to the part of the game where I CAN do something as quickly as possible. Aka: f-u Endless Space.

While I agree... minor point... battle animation been skippable since I started playing the game. I didn't buy it at launch though.

The biggest problem with Endless Space's battle skip was that it DID NOT actually simulate the battle in the background. It just summed up each fleet's weapons, armor, and HP, and then assigned 'kills' randomly.This is exactly what made me stop playing.

Bingo. Skipping had a different outcome than not skipping. Making watching more beneficial. Making the game boring.

Hummm, source on that for later builds ? As stated above, didn't really play at start, and in my personnal experience, apart in the rare cases where choosing another card after seeing the result of the first card (and that has more to do with learning how the game works than anything), I didn't notice changes. That said, the combat has been reworked quite a few time. Also, an option had been added to accelerate watched combat.

Quote

since the game doesn't really reward you for huge battles against powerful enemies, as it is hard to get a claim allowing you to get much in that case

Actually, it can => once I had the game declare a crusade against the king of France, as he was a cathar and not a catholic. As the emperor of Brittain at the time, I did what was needed and conquered France in a single glorious war.

In any other case you will actively try to avoid a fight, because you know you will lose out. That's how grand strategy works. You want to have balanced fights with a lot of "in-battle" micro decisionmaking? Go play Starcraft.

Which is ALL FINE as long as the game doesn't make me sit through an unskippable movie of the fight. If I can't do anything, let me go back to the part of the game where I CAN do something as quickly as possible. Aka: f-u Endless Space.

That's how grand strategy works. You want to have balanced fights with a lot of "in-battle" micro decisionmaking? Go play Starcraft.

Clearly what I said is that I want to remove the gameplay that encourages doomstacking as a viable day 1 strategy and I want additional elements that promote decision making with consequences at all times. Loyalty on admirals, strategies and battleplans that do not change (without huge admiral skill influence) mid-battle, fundamental battle doctrines etc.

Fair and valid point, I just wanted to erase the idea from everyones minds that Stellaris is a game about fair fights. It's not, and was never designed to be. I agree that doomstacking is boring, but it's not the core of the problem.

And there are *many* ways to fix doomstacking in such a system, by making larger fleets have a big evasion penalty for example (since in a big fleet, you can't just "evade" however you want, you'd be crossing into pre-set fire lines of other ships) by giving admirals a fleet size they can manage but beyond that it gets muddy with sub-admirals who might not be all super skilled.

It doesn't quite solve the doomstacking problem, as you'd just have minor sub-fleets all flying around in one huge blob anyway. The *game* thinks you're not doomstacking, but in effect you are. There are ways around this too with code (system wide, for instance) but it gets complex and micro-intensive in a hurry, which is actually less fun than just doomblobbing.

Basically, if Stellaris were really grand strategy, my decision who to appoint as admiral, my empire battle doctrines and training programs for admirals, my exchange with a warrior insect race that teaches my generals new tricks. That kind of thing should play into battles decisions just as much as what I sent into battle and how it was equipped. Obviously in such a system, a "mono-weapon" platform would be incredibly daft thing to sent into battle, as any missile barrage is gonna be countered by PD which, believe it or not, happen to be extremely effective in space. And unlike the PD system, your missile ammo is very limited. (That I don't want as micro management, but as a fleet management thing that plays into everything, supply lines specifically)

Agreed, and this is where Stellaris currently suffers the hardest. Tech does almost nothing (baseline corvette spam is still the most mineral efficient way to wage war all the way up until Tier 5 XL weapons on Battleship fleets), the fleet cap is more a "suggestion" than an actual limit, and supply is handled by increased FTL-travel times and you still manually control your fleets. It's ... very less than ideal. There are many ways to make this better. I am looking forward to changes that are coming in the big "combat patch" some time in the future. I just hope they really do something interesting and not just tweak numbers.

Logged

Click here to get started with Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports.

Hummm, source on that for later builds ? As stated above, didn't really play at start, and in my personnal experience, apart in the rare cases where choosing another card after seeing the result of the first card (and that has more to do with learning how the game works than anything), I didn't notice changes. That said, the combat has been reworked quite a few time. Also, an option had been added to accelerate watched combat.

Don't know and have little interest in finding out. It wasn't even the game that drove me away from the game in the end, it was the company's (ab)use of how they decided to handle player input and feedback into their development cycle.

This week's vote! * Major game-impacting bug fix * New feature * QOL UI improvement that was super popularWinner gets worked on, the losers are ignored forever.(Guess what won?)

Hummm, source on that for later builds ? As stated above, didn't really play at start, and in my personnal experience, apart in the rare cases where choosing another card after seeing the result of the first card (and that has more to do with learning how the game works than anything), I didn't notice changes. That said, the combat has been reworked quite a few time. Also, an option had been added to accelerate watched combat.

Don't know and have little interest in finding out. It wasn't even the game that drove me away from the game in the end, it was the company's (ab)use of how they decided to handle player input and feedback into their development cycle.

It may have changed, but it was still true when the expansion came out. It isn't so obvious with well-rounded units, but try it with small missile-only units. That was where it first became obvious to me.

This week's vote! * Major game-impacting bug fix * New feature * QOL UI improvement that was super popularWinner gets worked on, the losers are ignored forever.(Guess what won?)

Now, that's not entirely fair.Sometimes there was the 'Cool graphics update developers like' that would show up week after week until it 'won' the vote.

"Cool update the developers want" repeatedly shows up. "Fix that damn bug already" got one shot. Mind, it was fixed, eventually (like....9 months later), but there's NO reason those three items should have ever appeared in a vote together. At all. Ever.

"Which of three bugs needs to be fixed first?" is grumble-worthy (but acceptable), "which of these UI changes would address the problem X for you?" Very valid.

"Do we fix a major bug or develop new features or work on the UI" is not appropriate. Sure, someone eventually needs to make the determination in order to divide their time, but it is not appropriate to ask the community that question and then ignore that one specific bug for most of a year.